By Analysis Desk | The Net-Zero Scorecard
Kenya’s telecommunications giant has made bold climate promises. By 2050, Safaricom pledges to reach net-zero emissions—a commitment that would position it among Africa’s most environmentally ambitious corporations. The company, which serves 37.1 million customers and contributes 6.5% to Kenya’s GDP, has planted its flag firmly in the climate-conscious camp. Yet scrutinising the details reveals a troubling gap between aspiration and execution that raises questions about whether East Africa’s digital backbone is pioneering genuine climate leadership or crafting an elaborate greenwashing exercise.
The promise: Science meets marketing
Safaricom’s climate commitments appear rigorous on paper. Working with the Carbon Trust, the company has set science-based targets: a 43% emissions reduction by 2030 and 74% by 2050 from a 2017 baseline—targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative. The roadmap encompasses direct emissions from diesel generators, indirect emissions from purchased electricity, and supply chain impacts across its value chain.
The company has secured KSh30 billion in sustainability-linked loans—the largest green financing package in East Africa—with interest rates tied to achieving environmental targets. This financial commitment signals serious intent, at least from lenders betting on Safaricom’s green credentials.
The Reality: Diesel dependency and data gaps
Scope 1 Emissions: The generator problem
Safaricom’s Achilles’ heel remains its dependence on diesel generators. Despite claims that “most” base stations are solarised, the company provides no quantitative breakdown of sites still running on fossil fuels. Kenya’s unreliable grid forces telecoms to maintain backup diesel systems, particularly for remote sites operating around the clock.
The company reports a 20% annual reduction target for network emissions, yet this conflicts with aggressive network expansion. Each new 4G and 5G base station adds energy-intensive equipment faster than renewable installations can compensate. Progress on diesel reduction appears modest: Safaricom’s Scope 1 emissions fell from 37,630 tonnes CO₂e in 2017 to 28,311 tonnes in 2020—a 25% decline over three years, well short of the 20% annual target.
Scope 2 Emissions: Grid games
Kenya’s electricity mix offers Safaricom a structural advantage. The grid draws roughly 80% from renewable sources—hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar. This allows the company to claim low location-based emissions factors compared with global peers. Yet frequent outages force reliance on diesel backup, undermining the renewable credentials.
Safaricom’s 50% renewable energy procurement target lacks urgency compared with South African peer Vodacom’s 100% commitment by 2025. More troubling is the absence of power purchase agreements or direct renewable procurement deals—suggesting the company benefits from Kenya’s green grid without driving additional renewable capacity.
Scope 3 Emissions: The great unknown
Here lies Safaricom’s most glaring weakness. The company’s 2020 Scope 3 emissions of just 2,619 tonnes CO₂e—representing 4.4% of total reported emissions—defies industry norms. For global telecoms, supply chain emissions typically account for 70-80% of the carbon footprint, encompassing device manufacturing, network equipment production, and end-of-life disposal.
Safaricom acknowledges this blind spot, committing to improve supplier engagement and data collection. Yet without comprehensive Scope 3 accounting, the company’s net-zero claim rests on incomplete foundations. The Carbon Trust partnership includes mapping purchased goods and sold products, but published data remains fragmentary.
The offset gamble: Trees versus technology
Safaricom’s offset strategy centres on tree-planting—5 million indigenous saplings by 2025, partnering with the Kenya Forest Service. At maturity, the project promises to offset 26% of operational emissions. Progress lags at 1.3 million trees planted, raising questions about delivery.
More fundamentally, the heavy reliance on offsets—rather than absolute emissions reductions—follows a troubling corporate pattern. Nature-based solutions face risks from drought, fires, and poor maintenance. Without rigorous monitoring and third-party verification, tree-planting becomes a convenient accounting exercise rather than genuine carbon removal.
The company provides no detail on offset quality, permanence, or additionality standards—basic requirements for credible carbon accounting. Kenya’s nascent offset market lacks the infrastructure for high-quality, verifiable projects, increasing the risk of phantom reductions.
Transparency deficit: Verification vacuum
Despite adopting Global Reporting Initiative standards and securing Science Based Targets validation, Safaricom’s climate disclosures lack independent verification. No third-party audit covers emissions data or offset projects—a glaring gap compared with European telecoms subject to mandatory climate reporting.
The company’s sustainability reports remain “lite” compared with international peers. Vodafone publishes comprehensive Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) reports with external assurance. BT Group achieved carbon neutrality in 2020 through rigorously verified reductions, not accounting tricks.
Safaricom’s opacity extends to progress tracking. Without annual emissions inventories or interim milestones, stakeholders cannot assess whether the company meets its 20% annual reduction target. This verification vacuum undermines credibility.
Peer comparison: Regional leader, global laggard
Among African telecoms, Safaricom’s climate ambitions appear relatively advanced. MTN Group targets carbon neutrality by 2040—a decade ahead of Safaricom—while Airtel Africa has made minimal public commitments beyond energy efficiency.
Yet the comparison flatters through lowered expectations. Globally, Safaricom trails significantly. European telecoms achieve higher renewable procurement (Vodafone reaches 84% globally), more aggressive targets (BT commits to net-zero by 2030), and comprehensive third-party verification.
The gap reflects structural constraints: unreliable grids, limited green finance, and weak regulatory pressure on climate reporting. Yet these challenges cannot excuse incomplete disclosure or over-reliance on questionable offsets.
Financial reality: Green loans, brown operations
Safaricom’s KSh30 billion sustainability-linked financing represents genuine progress in African green finance. The loans tie interest rates to environmental performance, creating financial incentives for delivery. Kenya’s green bond market remains embryonic—less than 0.1% of Africa’s issuances—making Safaricom a regional trailblazer.
Yet sustainability-linked loans often include modest performance thresholds, raising questions about transformational impact. The company’s renewable energy investments remain dwarfed by its afforestation budget—suggesting misaligned priorities between genuine decarbonisation and marketable offsets.
The Verdict: Promising framework, patchy execution
Safaricom deserves recognition for establishing science-based targets and engaging credible advisers. In Kenya’s corporate landscape—where environmental disclosure remains voluntary and climate strategies rare—the company genuinely pioneers.
Yet execution gaps abound. The heavy reliance on offsets, incomplete Scope 3 accounting, verification deficit, and modest renewable procurement suggest a strategy prioritising commitment over delivery. Critical questions remain unanswered: How many sites still burn diesel? What drives the implausibly low Scope 3 emissions? When will third-party verification begin?
The company’s net-zero strategy reflects broader challenges facing emerging market corporations: genuine ambition constrained by structural limitations and market realities. Whether Safaricom becomes a model for African corporate climate action depends on translating current promises into measurable emissions reductions over the next decade.
For now, Safaricom sets the pace among African telecoms—though that says more about regional laggards than the Kenyan operator’s absolute performance. The company has built credible scaffolding with Science Based Targets and Carbon Trust partnerships. But operational execution—replacing diesel with solar, mapping supply chain emissions, verifying offset projects—remains conspicuously incomplete.
In an era where corporate climate pledges multiply faster than actual reductions, Safaricom faces a choice: lead through genuine decarbonisation or risk becoming another case study in sophisticated greenwashing. Kenya’s economy needs its digital champion to succeed. Yet as East Africa’s telecommunications backbone, Safaricom must decide whether to power growth with sunlight or carbon credits. The climate mathematics remain unforgiving.
Overall ESG Climate Score: C+
Strengths: Science-based targets, regional leadership, green finance innovation
Critical gaps: Offset over-reliance, verification deficit, incomplete Scope 3 disclosure
Tagged: SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure) | SDG 13 (Climate Action)
